From owner-sc22wg5+sc22wg5-dom8=www.open-std.org@open-std.org Wed May 29 17:28:28 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: sc22wg5-dom8 Delivered-To: sc22wg5-dom8@www.open-std.org Received: by www.open-std.org (Postfix, from userid 521) id 5E42F356EF8; Wed, 29 May 2013 17:28:27 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: sc22wg5@open-std.org Received: from e39.co.us.ibm.com (e39.co.us.ibm.com [32.97.110.160]) by www.open-std.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBA21356EF7 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 17:28:12 +0200 (CEST) Received: from /spool/local by e39.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:28:10 -0600 Received: from d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (9.56.250.166) by e39.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.139) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Wed, 29 May 2013 09:28:07 -0600 Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by d01dlp01.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DBE638C8051 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 11:28:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (d01av03.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.217]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r4TFS66P320436 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 11:28:07 -0400 Received: from d01av03.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r4TFS6CF011534 for ; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:28:06 -0300 Received: from d25ml03.torolab.ibm.com (d25ml03.torolab.ibm.com [9.26.29.96]) by d01av03.pok.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id r4TFS5OS011422; Wed, 29 May 2013 12:28:05 -0300 In-Reply-To: <166ED263DF83324D9A3BA67FB6772B2B59FA4012@BADWLRZ-SWMBX11.ads.mwn.de> References: <20130527194800.755D0356E40@www.open-std.org> <20130528064313.2D3EA356EC9@www.open-std.org> <20130528175553.29F77356E2E@www.open-std.org> <20130528195028.EDA22356E76@www.open-std.org> <20130528215920.3F54A356922@www.open-std.org> <20130529115820.DF87A356E9B@www.open-std.org> <20130529120239.D28BB356EA6@www.open-std.org> <001001ce5c6f$70430a10$50c91e30$@chivers@chiversandbryan.co.uk> <166ED263DF83324D9A3BA67FB6772B2B59FA4012@BADWLRZ-SWMBX11.ads.mwn.de> To: fortran standards email list for J3 Cc: "'WG5'" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5008) AW: AW: AW: Corrections to TS29113 X-KeepSent: 4112E643:1808F891-85257B7A:0054AE69; type=4; name=$KeepSent X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3FP3 November 16, 2012 Message-ID: From: Rafik Zurob Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:28:02 -0400 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D25ML03/25/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP3|November 15, 2012) at 05/29/2013 11:28:05, Serialize complete at 05/29/2013 11:28:05 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-TM-AS-MML: No X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 13052915-3620-0000-0000-000002C41798 Sender: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org Precedence: bulk Perhaps we can break C descriptors further into: C descriptors corresponding to allocatable / pointer actual arguments C descriptors corresponding to assumed-shape actual arguments (C descriptors for assumed-rank should already be included in the assumed=20 rank item, so it does not need to be included again here.) The reason for the above breakdown is that these items are self-contained=20 -- one can implement one without the other. And if we're going to list ISO=5FFortran=5Fbinding.h as a separate item, do= we=20 want the C descriptor manipulation functions (the 8 CFI=5F* routines) as a separate item or should we include it and ISO=5FFortran=5Fbinding.h in a "C= =20 headers and functions for C descriptor support" item? Regards Rafik j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org wrote on 29/05/2013 10:42:36 AM: > From: "Bader, Reinhold" > To: fortran standards email list for J3 , > "'WG5'" ,=20 > Date: 29/05/2013 10:55 AM > Subject: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5008) AW: AW: AW: Corrections to TS29113 > Sent by: j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org >=20 > Hello Ian,=20 >=20 > "Array descriptor" lumps together rather a lot. Perhaps this can be=20 split into >=20 > BIND(C) interfaces support descriptor dummy arguments=20 > C interface to descriptors (ISO=5FFortran=5Fbinding.h) >=20 > (although I agree that one without the other is not really useful). >=20 > Furthermore, add >=20 > Extended ISO=5FC=5FBINDING module procedure semantics (cf. 8.1 of the TS) >=20 >=20 > > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org [mailto:j3-bounces@mailman.j3- > > fortran.org] Im Auftrag von Ian Chivers > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Mai 2013 16:15 > > An: 'fortran standards email list for J3'; 'WG5' > > Cc: 'Bill Long' > > Betreff: Re: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5008) AW: AW: AW: Corrections to=20 TS29113 > >=20 > > In the light of the publication of > >=20 > > ISO/IEC TS 29113:2012 > >=20 > > Tobias Burnus notified us about the document and suggested the=20 following > > entries > > for inclusion in the compiler conformance table. > >=20 > >=20 http://www.fortranplus.co.uk/resources/fortran=5F2003=5F2008=5Fcompiler=5Fs= upport > > .pd > > f > >=20 > > OPTIONAL with BIND(C) > > Assumed type > > Assumed rank > > RANK intrinsic > > Array descriptor > > ASYNCHRONOUS changes > >=20 > > does anyone have any other suggestions/recommendations > >=20 > > cheers > >=20 > > Ian chivers and Jane Sleightholme > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org > > [mailto:j3-bounces@mailman.j3-fortran.org] On Behalf Of Bader,=20 Reinhold > > Sent: 29 May 2013 13:02 > > To: WG5 > > Cc: Bill Long > > Subject: (j3.2006) (SC22WG5.5008) AW: AW: AW: Corrections to TS29113 > >=20 > > Hello Bill, > >=20 > > OK. I've attached an updated version of the complete draft; in=20 particular > > I've also added edits for section (D). > >=20 > > Regards > > Reinhold > >=20 > > > -----Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht----- > > > Von: owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org [mailto:owner-sc22wg5@open-std.org] > > > Im Auftrag von Bill Long > > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 29. Mai 2013 13:58 > > > An: longb@cray.com; sc22wg5 > > > Betreff: (SC22WG5.5007) (j3.2006) AW: AW: Corrections to TS29113 > > > > > > Arg! Ignore the comments about C535b versus C535c - I was looking=20 at > > > the wrong document. Reinhold was, of course, right on those. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > On 5/28/13 5:02 PM, Bill Long wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 5/28/13 2:43 PM, Bader, Reinhold wrote: > > > >> Here a modified version of section (A): > > > >>=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> -- > > > >> --------------------------------- > > > >> (A) Assumed rank entities. > > > >> > > > >> The Fortran lower bounds of an assumed-rank dummy argument that > > > does > > > >> not have the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE attribute should be one. > > > >> Furthermore, > > > >> C532 must be loosened in order to allow assumed-rank entities to > > > >> have the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE attribute. > > > >> > > > >> EDITS: > > > >> > > > >> In section 5.2, after C535c, insert > > > > > > > > C535b ? 5.2 does not currently have a C535c. > > > >> > > > >> "The lower bounds of an assumed-rank entity argument associated=20 with a > > > >> non-pointer non-allocatable array are 1 > > > > > > > > Better in this subclause. Maybe clearer if "that is" follows=20 "entity". > > > > No hyphens in nonpointer or nonallocatable. > > > > > > > >> ; its extents are those of its > > > >> effective argument. > > > > > > > > This is already covered in 6.3. > > > > > > > >> The size, bounds, and shape of an unallocated allocatable or a > > > >> disassociated pointer assumed-rank entity are undefined; the > > > > > > > > I think this is already true in general. > > > > > > > >> size, bounds, and shape of an allocated allocatable or an > > > >> associated pointer assumed-rank entity are assumed from its > > > >> effective argument." > > > > > > > > This is already covered in 6.3. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> The same text is added at the end of section 9.5, after C535c. > > > > > > > > C535b. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Before the edits for 5.3.8.7 in section 9.5, add > > > >> > > > >> "{In 5.3.8.4, change C532 as follows} > > > >> > > > >> C532 An array with the POINTER or ALLOCATABLE attribute ~[that is > > > >> not an assumed rank entity (5.3.8.7)] shall have an=20 array-spec > > > >> that is a deferred-shape-spec-list." > > > > > > > > I agree this needs to be fixed. Good catch. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > >> (the ~[...] text is added and hence gets underwaves). > > > >> > > > >> Further comment: For the C descriptor, section 8.3.3 already > > > >> specifies the lower bound for a non-allocatable non-pointer array as > > zero. > > > >>=20 ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > >> -- > > > >> --------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Bill Long longb@cray.com > > > Fortran Technical Support & voice: 651-605-9024 > > > Bioinformatics Software Development fax: 651-605-9142 > > > Cray Inc./Cray Plaza, Suite 210/380 Jackson St./St. Paul, MN 55101 > > > > >=20 > >=20 > > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F= =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > > J3 mailing list > > J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org > > http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 > =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F =5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F=5F > J3 mailing list > J3@mailman.j3-fortran.org > http://mailman.j3-fortran.org/mailman/listinfo/j3 >=20